Barack Obama's Transparency

[Flannel Jesus]

I don't often make OPs about politics, cuz...fuck politics. But, I just found this current event intriguing.

Obama once, if I recall correctly, promised transparency in Government.

Memorandum for the Heads of Executive Departments and Agencies

My Administration is committed to creating an unprecedented level of openness in Government. We will work together to ensure the public trust and establish a system of transparency, public participation, and collaboration. Openness will strengthen our democracy and promote efficiency and effectiveness in Government.

etc. etc. you get the picture.

So once upon a time Mr. President promised transparency, and now all over the news is "Obama exerts Executive Privilege to block Congress from getting documents from DOJ." I don't vote, and I'm not surprised, this is what I expect from politicians of course, but still...this kinda sucks, eh?

And in case you're unaware of why Congress is trying to get documents from the DOJ, here's the backstory in a nutshell as I understand it: some government-funded arms deal, codenamed "Fast and Furious" I think, culminated in a whole bunch of guns in the hands of Mexican gangs, who used those very guns to kill some important people. Idk the whole story, but if I'm not completely misrepresenting this, I'd say that that story deserves an investigation. It's not particularly strange, as far as I can see, that Congress is interested in how a federal-funded arms deal ended in trading with Mexican warlords. Unsurprisingly, the Obama administration is accusing Republican congressmen of ulterior motives for this investigation -- and hell, they probably do have ulterior motives, but still, you promised transparency you fucking sociopath, and people you hired have put guns in the hands of foreign terrorists, so...fuck, I think people deserve some answers. You used to think so too, Mr. President. What happened to that?

[Gobbo]

[Flannel Jesus]

This isn't some weird obscure conspiracy. This actually happened.

[SIATD v2]

This isn't some weird obscure conspiracy. This actually happened.

What an incredibly shit argument...

[SIATD v2]

And in case you're unaware of why Congress is trying to get documents from the DOJ, here's the backstory in a nutshell as I understand it: some government-funded arms deal, codenamed "Fast and Furious" I think, culminated in a whole bunch of guns in the hands of Mexican gangs, who used those very guns to kill some important people. Idk the whole story, but if I'm not completely misrepresenting this, I'd say that that story deserves an investigation. It's not particularly strange, as far as I can see, that Congress is interested in how a federal-funded arms deal ended in trading with Mexican warlords. Unsurprisingly, the Obama administration is accusing Republican congressmen of ulterior motives for this investigation -- and hell, they probably do have ulterior motives, but still, you promised transparency you fucking sociopath, and people you hired have put guns in the hands of foreign terrorists, so...fuck, I think people deserve some answers. You used to think so too, Mr. President. What happened to that?

Nothing happened to that. 'Greater government openness and transparency' just means dumping a whole load more irrelevant information into the public domain while keeping the important stuff secret.

Frankly, there is literally no evidence in the whole of US history that even if congress got hold of the documents that they would carry out a proper investigation. They failed with JFK, failed with Vietnam, failed with Watergate, failed with Iran Contra, failed with 9/11...

[uglypeoplefucking]

dude, the election's in November - Republicans are attacking the president's administration like they are supposed to, and the president is telling them to go fuck themselves in a distinctly presidential way, like he's supposed to. why would someone who claims not to care about politics be concerned with something that's so obviously a political ploy on everyone's part?

[Flannel Jesus]

This isn't some weird obscure conspiracy. This actually happened.

What an incredibly shit argument...

It is? I would think that some corrupt shit actually happening is actually a pretty good argument for it being more relevant than some obscure conspiracy theory. None of my OP was theoretical, I'm not sure you understand that. None of it was conjecture. None of it is disputed. It's all public knowledge, not denied by anybody. It's not a theory that Barack blocked congress from getting the documents. It's not a theory that Fast and Furious guns ended up in the hands of cartels. This is publicly known factual information. I think, when you pulled your dick out and tried to whip me with it, that you thought I was saying "This actually happened" as an argument for my idea that it actually happened. I might be american, dick, but I'm not that stupid. It would be a shit argument, if that's what it was an argument for. But, you just jumped the gun too fast in your desire to put someone down. I don't need to argue that it actually happened, nobody denies it. It's not a question. The only question is, why is Barack being so secretive about it. Everything else I said...yeah, it actually happened, and yeah, that makes it different from an obscure conspiracy theory. If journalistic news and conspiracy theory hold the same level of credibility to you, then maybe it would be a shit argument, but if not, pull your foot out of your mouth.

Anyway, if no one else is surprised that Obama has explicitly backed down on his promise for transparency in order to protect his corrupt friends, then I guess I'm just preaching to the choir. Carry on.

[SIATD v2]

This isn't some weird obscure conspiracy. This actually happened.

What an incredibly shit argument...

It is?

Like the dog in the advert says, oooooh yes.

I would think that some corrupt shit actually happening is actually a pretty good argument for it being more relevant than some obscure conspiracy theory.

Was that what you were attempting to argue with your two sentences?

None of my OP was theoretical, I'm not sure you understand that. None of it was conjecture. None of it is disputed. It's all public knowledge, not denied by anybody. It's not a theory that Barack blocked congress from getting the documents. It's not a theory that Fast and Furious guns ended up in the hands of cartels. This is publicly known factual information. I think, when you pulled your dick out and tried to whip me with it, that you thought I was saying "This actually happened" as an argument for my idea that it actually happened. I might be american, dick, but I'm not that stupid.

I assure you, you are.

It would be a shit argument, if that's what it was an argument for. But, you just jumped the gun too fast in your desire to put someone down.

No, your argument 'what you are saying is a weird obscure conspiracy theory' is a shit argument per se. No matter what context and to what end one uses that argument, it is just a shit argument.

I don't need to argue that it actually happened, nobody denies it. It's not a question. The only question is, why is Barack being so secretive about it.

Barack is not. It is the permanent 'security' institutions - that were there a long time before Barry, and will be there a long time after Barry is gone, be it this year or in a few - that are being so secretive about it. I think you can imagine the answer to the question of why they are being secretive about it.

A better question is why do security and secrecy go hand in hand? Why do they, in fact, mean pretty much the same thing in our society?

Everything else I said...yeah, it actually happened, and yeah, that makes it different from an obscure conspiracy theory. If journalistic news and conspiracy theory hold the same level of credibility to you, then maybe it would be a shit argument, but if not, pull your foot out of your mouth.

On the contrary, I rank conspiracy theory as holding a whole lot more credibility than journalistic news. Journalists are pretty much all either corrupt or incompetent. The way they've handled this whole fast and furious scandal is precisely that - as a scandal. It is actually a matter of organised criminal activity, but instead they're talking about whether Barry's or Willard's gang are going to come out on top of the political bickering.

Anyway, if no one else is surprised that Obama has explicitly backed down on his promise for transparency in order to protect his corrupt friends, then I guess I'm just preaching to the choir. Carry on.

Barry had no choice. You don't fuck with the security state, because if you do then they ruin you or kill you. He is a consummate liar, but he isn't stupid...

[Flannel Jesus]

No, your argument 'what you are saying is a weird obscure conspiracy theory' is a shit argument per se. No matter what context and to what end one uses that argument, it is just a shit argument.

I never made that argument, and if you're stupid enough to think I did...well, you're pretty damn stupid. That's the implicit argument he was making, moron. Have a hard time understanding subtext I see.

As for the rest of your post, pretty damn stupid as well.

[uglypeoplefucking]

Anyway, if no one else is surprised that Obama has explicitly backed down on his promise for transparency in order to protect his corrupt friends, then I guess I'm just preaching to the choir.

i'm surprised anyone is surprised. Obama was an idealist, then he became president. in any case, presidents do this all the time.

all this is is Congressional Republicans trying to dig up dirt on Obama ahead of the election, then yelling foul when he uses his power to stymie them.

[Flannel Jesus]

Well, if he uses his power in ways that contradict his campaign for transparency, I say that's fair game.

[uglypeoplefucking]

you're right, it's all fair game - but a game is all it is. who really knows what went down with the guns, or why the president won't talk about it? the US is always involved in all kinds of shady arms deals - but a sitting president can't just admit that publically. he also wouldn't have the power to put a stop to such deals even if he wanted to - but he can't admit that publically either. and Congressional Republicans know that. they are deliberately forcing the president's hand, and their timing is impeccable.

[Flannel Jesus]

We're agreed on all counts.

[Gobbo]

It's all public knowledge, not denied by anybody.

Yeah. Exactly. ... Obviously no one here stays up to date on current news (except Siatd).

Obamas birth/father was a conspiracy a year ago. It's not a conspiracy anymore.



This forum is so sllllllooooooowwwwwwww to find anything out, and wouldn't be if they stepped out of the MSM, once, daily. So sad this point that people still just dogmatically flock to that shit. I don't even have to watch your video to know it's some mainstream nonsense that is irrelevant to the wide picture.

[lizbethrose]

flannel jesus wrote:

And in case you're unaware of why Congress is trying to get documents from the DOJ, here's the backstory in a nutshell as I understand it: some government-funded arms deal, codenamed "Fast and Furious" I think, culminated in a whole bunch of guns in the hands of Mexican gangs, who used those very guns to kill some important people. Idk the whole story, but if I'm not completely misrepresenting this, I'd say that that story deserves an investigation. It's not particularly strange, as far as I can see, that Congress is interested in how a federal-funded arms deal ended in trading with Mexican warlords. Unsurprisingly, the Obama administration is accusing Republican congressmen of ulterior motives for this investigation -- and hell, they probably do have ulterior motives, but still, you promised transparency you fucking sociopath, and people you hired have put guns in the hands of foreign terrorists, so...fuck, I think people deserve some answers. You used to think so too, Mr. President. What happened to that?

This is a very good description of how the internet is used to disseminate faulty and/or incomplete knowledge in order to follow an agenda. Fast and Furious was one of several attempts ( which started before the present administration) at ATF stings to trace illegal gun sales. They were all meant to allow guns 'to walk' from straw buyers to drug cartels. so the cartels could be caught with illegal weapons. These operations have always been questioned by ATF agents, who are trained to stop illegal sales.

Brian Terry, a Border Patrol agent in Arizona, was killed in a fire-fight initiated by illegals crossing the border. Two rifles used by the illegals were identified as F&F weapons; many more have been traced to shooting incidents in both Mexico and LA.

It's understandable to any one who thinks about it for a moment why the Justice Department and the Administration wants to keep details of all the operations out of the hands of the public; to do otherwise would expose the details of the various operations, which could be a security breach.

The outcome so far? Rep. Issa, R-Cali, one of the two Republicans leading the investigation, said, in the Chicago Sun-Times:

Congress doesn’t have any evidence so far of a White House cover-up involving a botched gun-tracking operation, a top Republican (Issa) said Sunday, countering the House speaker’s (Boehner) assertion that President Barack Obama or his aides deliberately misled lawmakers.

And yet, Amazon.com is already promoting a book by

Intrepid investigative journalist Katie Pavlich rips the lid off Team Obama's murderous corruption and anti-Second Amendment zealotry

. Why? Because books like this will sell to conspiracy theorists and gun enthusiasts who see this, somehow, as another ploy being used by the administration to suppress legal gun sales and ownership.

Smoke on your pipe and put that in.

[tentative]

This whole hoo haw is about branch of government powers. Issa knows this and is just trying to play it up. Obama is protecting the executive branch internal discussions just like every president before him. When shrub was president, the repubs were quite happy to let him claim executive privilege any damned place he chose. But if Obama does the same, the repubs take umbrage that their attempt to claim authority where they have none is pissed on by the current administration. Holder isn't in contempt, he is the soccer ball being kicked around because the repubs can't have their way. His job includes NOT DISOBEYING claims of executive privilege. Issa wants to play congressional sneak and peek and Obama told him to fuck off. That Obama is protecting future president's executive perogatives get's lost in the fray. After it's all done Issa and the other asshats will lose. There is way too much precedent for executive privilege for presidents of both parties for the repubs to do more than shit in their own nest.

[SIATD v2]

No, your argument 'what you are saying is a weird obscure conspiracy theory' is a shit argument per se. No matter what context and to what end one uses that argument, it is just a shit argument.

I never made that argument, and if you're stupid enough to think I did...well, you're pretty damn stupid.

This isn't some weird obscure conspiracy. This actually happened.

Go fuck yourself.

That's the implicit argument he was making, moron. Have a hard time understanding subtext I see.

As for the rest of your post, pretty damn stupid as well.

American's are clearly not only dimwitted hypocrites, they are also dismissive cowards...

[Flannel Jesus]

I just handed to you on a platter the correct interpretation of what happened. You still don't get it? Are your eyes out of order?

What kind of idiot does it take to interpret "This isn't a weird conspiracy theory" as "What you're saying is a weird conspiracy theory"? I'm not arguing that it's a conspiracy theory, I don't care about anything that happened in that video. Even if it's all true, I wouldn't give a shit. If he wasn't posting it in an attempt to compare my post to a conspiracy theory, then I don't even see why it was posted at all. It has nothing to do with anything.

[SIATD v2]

This:

I just handed to you on a platter the correct interpretation of what happened. You still don't get it? Are your eyes out of order?

What kind of idiot does it take to interpret "This isn't a weird conspiracy theory" as "What you're saying is a weird conspiracy theory"? I'm not arguing that it's a conspiracy theory, I don't care about anything that happened in that video.

Is complete bullshit.

Simply look back at the thread. You posted. The first response was a video from Gobbo. Your followup post can ONLY have been a reply to that video, and it said:

This isn't some weird obscure conspiracy. This actually happened.

Hence, the comment 'this isn't some weird obscure conspiracy' only makes any sense at all if you are claiming that what is in that video is 'some weird obscure conspiracy'. If not, then it basically means nothing, which would also make it an irrevocably shit argument. Saying 'this actually happened' only makes sense if you're saying the stuff in Gobbo's video either didn't happen, or may not have happened, hence that it is theoretical. In sum, your argument can only have meant 'Gobbo's video is a weird obscure conspiracy theory', if it meant anything at all. This is a shit argument.

Your attempt to now backtrack is rather pathetic. You claim not to care about what's in the video that Gobbo posted is comprehensively and definitively refuted by the fact that you posted in response to it, with a response that was either seeking to be pejorative towards the video (indicating you do care) or meaning nothing at all (indicating you are stupid). OK, there's a little wriggle room for you there, you could still claim not to care but would in claiming so have to admit that you are stupid, which are you are personally opposed to doing. You even, with barely any provocation, called me 'dick' in some sort of pre-emptive swipe because you expected that I was going to call you stupid.

But that's your insecurity, not mine.

Even if it's all true, I wouldn't give a shit.

One doesn't give a shit, one takes a shit...

If he wasn't posting it in an attempt to compare my post to a conspiracy theory, then I don't even see why it was posted at all. It has nothing to do with anything.

You could, y'know, have asked him what he meant by it, rather than bitching, swiping at me for saying your bitching was a shit argument, and then declaring that you don't care and it is all meaningless. Perhaps next time you start a thread you'll remember this one, how it went, and take a different tack. But I'm not holding my breath or my dick in anticipation.

[SIATD v2]

It's all public knowledge, not denied by anybody.

Yeah. Exactly. ... Obviously no one here stays up to date on current news (except Siatd).

Obamas birth/father was a conspiracy a year ago. It's not a conspiracy anymore.



This forum is so sllllllooooooowwwwwwww to find anything out, and wouldn't be if they stepped out of the MSM, once, daily. So sad this point that people still just dogmatically flock to that shit. I don't even have to watch your video to know it's some mainstream nonsense that is irrelevant to the wide picture.

So what is the relevance of the official Obama myths? That Obama is a corporate project/product like Shakespeare and Mozart? The word in the alt media appears to be that Romney's in, which would make the Obama project a bit of a failure. I suppose they could pull some shenanigans before the election if Barry is really that important to them. Venezuelan Missile Crisis, nuclear false flag, I dunno.

I'm not quite sure how much of the birth issue I do believe, but that's mostly my innate scepticism talking. There's no fucking way that dude in the White House is who he says he is. Like I say, like Shakespeare. Do you know about all that, with the intelligence agent playwright Christopher Marlowe (the guy who wrote satanic classic Doctor Faustus)? Apparently it was all to do with the monarchic succession and the unification of Britain.

[Gobbo]

He was the project of a group of communists. The project failed.

[lizbethrose]

There are lions and tigers and bears, oh my! There are CSPAN and web sites and PublicRadio, oh my!

There's transparency, unless you just don't want to look.

There will always be secrets. That has to be, in order to protect any country. I read a rather balanced article in, I think, theNational Reviewconcerning the 'leaks.' If it wasn't that publication, it was a high-ranking conservative publication. It was written by a former CIA agent who said there are some things that must remain secret. He also admitted that the Senate could be responsible for the leak that landed the Pakistani doctor in jail for helping the CIA take down bin Laden. Whoever gave secret information to the press did so because of a personal agenda.

If the objective is to vilify the President, no matter who he is, the person responsible for any leak of secret knowledge has committed an act of treason, under Article 3, Section 3 of the Constitution, "Aiding and abetting an enemy of the US." Would a president, who's also a Constitutional lawyer, do such a thing?

[SIATD v2]

There are lions and tigers and bears, oh my! There are CSPAN and web sites and PublicRadio, oh my!

There's transparency, unless you just don't want to look.

Tell me, where are Ali Mohamed, Junaid Babar and David Coleman Headley? Respectively, the government agents behind the 1998 African embassy bombings, the 7/7 bombings in London, and the 2008 Mumbai massacre.

If there was transparency, I would already know.

There will always be secrets. That has to be, in order to protect any country. I read a rather balanced article in, I think, theNational Reviewconcerning the 'leaks.' If it wasn't that publication, it was a high-ranking conservative publication. It was written by a former CIA agent who said there are some things that must remain secret. He also admitted that the Senate could be responsible for the leak that landed the Pakistani doctor in jail for helping the CIA take down bin Laden. Whoever gave secret information to the press did so because of a personal agenda.

Seriously, that's your argument:
1) There is transparency, but
2) There is and always will be secrecy, and this is right because an ex-CIA guy (who couldn't possibly have any sort of agenda) told me so in some magazine I can't actually remember the name of

?

Bloody hell.

[Gobbo]

Yet another post of Liz's I couldn't read due to the annoyinness of it.

[PavlovianModel146]

I know you don't care if you take another Warning and short ban, so I'm not going to give you a Warning and short ban for that, but was there really any actual point whatsoever in saying that?